Fellow Class of 2013/pre-1L Transfers Forum

[engineer]

+1. For FWIW, work ethic really has little to do with grades. I think common sense goes a lot further (which is something a lot people seem to lack in law school). It amuses me how many people fail to do basic things like attending class, paying attention in class, and taking notes, but then will spend countless hours reading supplements trying to make up for what they missed in class. The problem with that is law school is incredibly subjective and really just about leaning what the professor cares about, emphasizes, and wants to see, and emanuel's can't tell you that.

I took notes last semester because I thought it was what I was supposed to do. I did okay. This semester, I'm not taking any notes; I go to class and I pay attention, but I don't take notes. However, I am recording one class, and I'm paying to have the lectures transcribed. I then simply highlight the important areas in the 200-page transcript for the course (this worked well last semester).

I just think that taking notes is kind of useless, especially since I'm not the type of person who goes back and re-reads them. I like to get an overall mental picture of something; it doesn't do much for me if I have notes for a class, because they're usually incomplete, anyway. Because of this, I tend to do better if I read a lot about a given subject. For example, I've read the Property E&E, Gilbert's, and I'm working on Acing property...I learn better when I recognize the overlap between the different materials and see the material presented in a few different ways. I'm a very visual, spatial learner, so when I can "see" the author's reasoning as it pertains to the overarching premises, I tend to remember it much more vividly. Your mileage may vary, however.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Well, the classes that must be taken in order to qualify for the MCAT are fairly extensive and difficult (the actual course list is short, I gather, but the pre-reqs to take the courses listed result in a decent chunk of classes). My understanding, from med students I've spoken with, is that med schools pay particular attention to the grades you got in the MCAT-qualifying classes: if true, that functions a lot like a fleshed-out pre-med program.

Like I said though, I don't think there is any way to do an analog for law school admissions. There really isn't any requisite background knowledge for law school, unlike med.

As far as recording classes and paying to have them transcribed goes:

[twistedwrister]

Haven't the numbers on entering LSAT vs. ultimate class rank already been done? I'm not arguing that there is any better metric to use--I certainly don't think UGPA does it--I'm just saying that it still sucks. Its predictive value is largely non-existent. If anyone has any studies to show otherwise, I would certainly bow to the numbers.

I honestly think the only realistic "metric" would be to go back to having legitimate pre-law undergrad "majors", and use those like med schools use pre-med backgrounds. Med schools still have the (MCAT, I believe), though--and I think that resurrecting the idea of pre-law programs is god awful. Certainly not worth any positive impact it would have on law school admissions.

Yep. From the LSAC Information Book:

"The correlation between LSAT scores and first-year
law school grades varies from one law school to another
(as does the correlation between GPA and first-year law
school grades). During 2006, validity studies were conducted
for 187 law schools. Correlations between LSAT
scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .04
to .60 (median is .33). Correlations between LSAT scores
combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and
first-year law school grades ranged from .25 to .64
(median is .47)."

.33 is a relatively weak correlation. The correlation is considerably better (0.47) if you combine GPA and LSAT, but still not great.

Personally, I was < 25% LSAT and > 75% GPA at my law school and ended up at/near the top of my class after 1L.

[engineer]

Haven't the numbers on entering LSAT vs. ultimate class rank already been done? I'm not arguing that there is any better metric to use--I certainly don't think UGPA does it--I'm just saying that it still sucks. Its predictive value is largely non-existent. If anyone has any studies to show otherwise, I would certainly bow to the numbers.

I honestly think the only realistic "metric" would be to go back to having legitimate pre-law undergrad "majors", and use those like med schools use pre-med backgrounds. Med schools still have the (MCAT, I believe), though--and I think that resurrecting the idea of pre-law programs is god awful. Certainly not worth any positive impact it would have on law school admissions.

Yep. From the LSAC Information Book:

"The correlation between LSAT scores and first-year
law school grades varies from one law school to another
(as does the correlation between GPA and first-year law
school grades). During 2006, validity studies were conducted
for 187 law schools. Correlations between LSAT
scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .04
to .60 (median is .33). Correlations between LSAT scores
combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and
first-year law school grades ranged from .25 to .64
(median is .47)."

.33 is a relatively weak correlation. The correlation is considerably better (0.47) if you combine GPA and LSAT, but still not great.

Personally, I was < 25% LSAT and > 75% GPA at my law school and ended up at/near the top of my class after 1L.

--LinkRemoved--

This puts those correlation coefficients into perspective.

[09042014]

Haven't the numbers on entering LSAT vs. ultimate class rank already been done? I'm not arguing that there is any better metric to use--I certainly don't think UGPA does it--I'm just saying that it still sucks. Its predictive value is largely non-existent. If anyone has any studies to show otherwise, I would certainly bow to the numbers.

I honestly think the only realistic "metric" would be to go back to having legitimate pre-law undergrad "majors", and use those like med schools use pre-med backgrounds. Med schools still have the (MCAT, I believe), though--and I think that resurrecting the idea of pre-law programs is god awful. Certainly not worth any positive impact it would have on law school admissions.

Yep. From the LSAC Information Book:

"The correlation between LSAT scores and first-year
law school grades varies from one law school to another
(as does the correlation between GPA and first-year law
school grades). During 2006, validity studies were conducted
for 187 law schools. Correlations between LSAT
scores and first-year law school grades ranged from .04
to .60 (median is .33). Correlations between LSAT scores
combined with undergraduate grade-point averages and
first-year law school grades ranged from .25 to .64
(median is .47)."

.33 is a relatively weak correlation. The correlation is considerably better (0.47) if you combine GPA and LSAT, but still not great.

Personally, I was < 25% LSAT and > 75% GPA at my law school and ended up at/near the top of my class after 1L.

--LinkRemoved--

This puts those correlation coefficients into perspective.

You also have the realize the LSAT range for most law schools is extremely small. The LSAT goes from 120-180, yet most schools have more than half their class within 4-5 of those points. The accuracy of any given LSAT is supposed to be +/-3 points.

A 172 LSAT could have been a 169 on any given day, and they could have been a 175.

Also law schools usually trade LSAT for GPA and vice versa. The people with high lsat at a given school will have a lower average gpa than those with a lower LSAT. Some on scholarship will have both.

If you took every law student in America and put them in one super section you'd see a lot higher correlation.

And after all that the LSAT is still the best single indicator of performance. The LSAT is a good standardized test, but be careful to draw to many conclusions from it. Just because you are at your schools 75% for LSAT, doesn't mean you are smarter than everyone else. The difference between you and the guy at the 25% is 4 questions on a standardized test. He also probably had a better GPA, which means he probably works harder.

[A'nold]

But once again this discussion started as a discussion about splitters. I still say that splitters have an edge because they are SO far above a school's 75% score and that the test, when, like someone else said, is more spread out, it just indicates that that person will do better.

Example: Say a school's median LSAT is a 158 and its 25% is 155 and its 75% is a 161. A 170+, if they work about as hard as the other students, will likely place in the top 20% of the class and all 170+'s at that school would likely average even higher.

[09042014]

But once again this discussion started as a discussion about splitters. I still say that splitters have an edge because they are SO far above a school's 75% score and that the test, when, like someone else said, is more spread out, it just indicates that that person will do better.

Example: Say a school's median LSAT is a 158 and its 25% is 155 and its 75% is a 161. A 170+, if they work about as hard as the other students, will likely place in the top 20% of the class and all 170+'s at that school would likely average even higher.

To sum it up, a couple points on the LSAT is almost worthless in determining how you will do.

[A'nold]

But once again this discussion started as a discussion about splitters. I still say that splitters have an edge because they are SO far above a school's 75% score and that the test, when, like someone else said, is more spread out, it just indicates that that person will do better.

Example: Say a school's median LSAT is a 158 and its 25% is 155 and its 75% is a 161. A 170+, if they work about as hard as the other students, will likely place in the top 20% of the class and all 170+'s at that school would likely average even higher.

To sum it up, a couple points on the LSAT is almost worthless in determining how you will do.

I think that's fair. So.../thread?

[rando]

Example: Say a school's median LSAT is a 158 and its 25% is 155 and its 75% is a 161. A 170+, if they work about as hard as the other students, will likely place in the top 20% of the class and all 170+'s at that school would likely average even higher.

But the point is that they are a splitter. In which case GPA is waaaay below median. Assuming that the average splitter will work as hard is a big assumption to make.

[270910]

Though I would never say this in real life to my friends at school or really to anyone before I got my first semester grades, I honestly wanted to transfer from day one.

Albeit I admit that i was content getting graduating here,and i was content practicing in Indiana (and I still am). But Looking back i remember always working for this.

and yeah most the students do have similar lsat/gpa, but I do thinks splitters have a unique advantage, some of us really didn't really work as hard in Ugrad so we never really reached our potential. Ill admit there were times I didn't try 100% (or even 50%) in undergrad, so when I finally gave it my all in law school things really clicked and worked out.

Yeah its a terrible idea to take this risk knowing that you don't want to graduate form the law school, and that you wouldn't want to practice in the region it places in. However I think transferring can be added motivation that helps you really do well. I worked harder then Ive ever worked for anything in my life this semester, and I dont know if I would have had the emotional drive if it wasn't for knowing the bonus' and rewards at the end.

I will say talking and planning on transferring before you ever have one law school class is beyond pointless, thinking about it and using it for motivation is different.

I would definitely say that most splitters are at an advantage and I really don't see how GPA really correlates at all to 1L success but definitely see how the LSAT does.

I'm going to make it my life mission to follow you around posting 'had a shitty LSAT, was lucky to get into my school, did extremely well'. This is insane... we have a pleasant conversation about how GPA/LSAT can't predict grades and then y'all are like "ROFL EXCEPT IT'S MY LEE7 FUCKING 20 FOOT TALL LSAT THAT DID IT FOR ME" -.-

[rando]

Though I would never say this in real life to my friends at school or really to anyone before I got my first semester grades, I honestly wanted to transfer from day one.

Albeit I admit that i was content getting graduating here,and i was content practicing in Indiana (and I still am). But Looking back i remember always working for this.

and yeah most the students do have similar lsat/gpa, but I do thinks splitters have a unique advantage, some of us really didn't really work as hard in Ugrad so we never really reached our potential. Ill admit there were times I didn't try 100% (or even 50%) in undergrad, so when I finally gave it my all in law school things really clicked and worked out.

Yeah its a terrible idea to take this risk knowing that you don't want to graduate form the law school, and that you wouldn't want to practice in the region it places in. However I think transferring can be added motivation that helps you really do well. I worked harder then Ive ever worked for anything in my life this semester, and I dont know if I would have had the emotional drive if it wasn't for knowing the bonus' and rewards at the end.

I will say talking and planning on transferring before you ever have one law school class is beyond pointless, thinking about it and using it for motivation is different.

I would definitely say that most splitters are at an advantage and I really don't see how GPA really correlates at all to 1L success but definitely see how the LSAT does.

I'm going to make it my life mission to follow you around posting 'had a shitty LSAT, was lucky to get into my school, did extremely well'. This is insane... we have a pleasant conversation about how GPA/LSAT can't predict grades and then y'all are like "ROFL EXCEPT IT'S MY LEE7 FUCKING 20 FOOT TALL LSAT THAT DID IT FOR ME" -.-

hilarious.

[A'nold]

Haha, I'm pretty sure you all beat me on the LSAT.

[09042014]

Haha, I'm pretty sure you all beat me on the LSAT.

You said you studied for the LSAT wrong, what were you doing wrong?

[A'nold]

Haha, I'm pretty sure you all beat me on the LSAT.

You said you studied for the LSAT wrong, what were you doing wrong?

I think I focused a lot on just "getting it" by comparing my answer to the real answers instead of really just trying to learn overall concepts. For example, I never used any LR bible principles really (i.e., I didn't memorize any of their logical steps analysis or anything) or memorized setups for the games. I kind of just tried to take as many as I could and tbh I wasn't honest enough about my need for a more rigid application on the games section.

As for RC, I would have sucked no matter what. On the old tests, I'd get like -0 to -3 but on the newer ones I was lucky to get a -6 and had many -7's and 8's.

[thexfactor]

, and taking notes

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean notes on optimal solitaire strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

. Taking notes in class is WAY more efficient then reading that crap they assign you (what is it called, a casebook? doorstop? I forget). 99% of all I really do nowadays is attend class and take notes. It's worked out pretty well. I mean it's pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to sound retarded in class when I get called on because I never do the reading and try to pretend like I did it, but whatever, saying something smart in class when called on isn't something that's graded anyway.

Agreed.
Just pay attention in class. Dont sleep or go on facebook. " Pretend" you are interested in the material, that helps a lot.
If you don't read, don't ask questions. I asked a question yesterday and I looked like a complete dumbass cuz my question was answered in the next case.

[RayFinkle]

, and taking notes

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean notes on optimal solitaire strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

. Taking notes in class is WAY more efficient then reading that crap they assign you (what is it called, a casebook? doorstop? I forget). 99% of all I really do nowadays is attend class and take notes. It's worked out pretty well. I mean it's pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to sound retarded in class when I get called on because I never do the reading and try to pretend like I did it, but whatever, saying something smart in class when called on isn't something that's graded anyway.

Agreed.
Just pay attention in class. Dont sleep or go on facebook. " Pretend" you are interested in the material, that helps a lot.
If you don't read, don't ask questions. I asked a question yesterday and I looked like a complete dumbass cuz my question was answered in the next case.

[Vincent Vega]

The topic of this thread hurts my soul.

haha

[A'nold]

The topic of this thread hurts my soul.

How can a thread hurt something that isn't there, my drunken sheriff friend?

[youpiiz]

--LinkRemoved--

This puts those correlation coefficients into perspective.

didnt want to write on this thread, but i love you. perspective in corr coeff ftw

[RP1983]

Any other TLS users who will be starting 1L this fall and already know they want to transfer?

The best law school option I have right now is the third-best law school in a state without especially good law schools. This is mostly on account of royally messing up my GPA because of personal reasons during undergrad, personal reasons which, thankfully, I've since gotten over.

I really don't want to actually finish at the same law school I will start at in August. I simply know that already.

So, this thread is for any other pre-1L transfers. Anyone else?

Going to law school with the goal of transferring is fine, but you have to be ok if you are unable to transfer and that is the key. You should allow your goal of transferring to motivate you everyday to get the best grades you can. But remember, if that doesn't happen you have to be ok with the school you are going to.